Women in church

[Robin Mauro]

I started another thread about spiritual truths in the Bible that I’d like you to consider contributing to.

Okay. Thanks. If I can find it.

 

[Emmylouwho]

Okay. Thanks. If I can find it.

I think it’s called spiritual truths in the Bible. Not sure how to link it.

 

[SkyWriting]

was created as Adams helper. If women are to become what they are created to to be then that is their place.

Jesus was greatly offended when the disciples or anyone
choose "a place" for anyone else. It was Jesus stand that
the Father or the Spirit made those decisions for everyone,
not other people.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not at all. This is the order: God first, then Jesus, Man, Women, Angels. In the Bible to be head or leader is very simple. Leader is the person everyone follows.

That is one of many definitions.

 

[Strong in Him]

I started another thread about spiritual truths in the Bible that I’d like you to consider contributing to.

If you are serious about ignoring 1 Corinthians, why did you start this thread? What does it matter if you are puzzled by a verse when you have decided not to bother with the entire book?

By the way, if you are disregarding the whole of 1 Corinthians then that includes chapter 13 - love is patient, love is kind etc etc, which is often read at weddings. It also includes chapter 12 where Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit and chapter 15 where he defines what the Gospel is and talks about life after death.

 

[SkyWriting]

I do not believe anyone is trapped in the wrong body. I believe this is a new twist on how screwed up people really are.

Your analysis aside, who is permitted to argue with the church leader during services besides his wife?

 

[Strong in Him]

Not at all. This is the order: God first, then Jesus, Man, Women, Angels.

Jesus IS God; it's not possible to separate them so that one is first and one is second.

In the Bible to be head or leader is very simple. Leader is the person everyone follows.

And on one occasion the leader was a woman - Deborah.

 

[Anguspure]

Jesus was greatly offended when the disciples or anyone
choose "a place" for anyone else. It was Jesus stand that
the Father or the Spirit made those decisions for everyone,
not other people.

I like you stance TBH. It is YHWH who defines position.

But here is the thing: As a man with a family I have a place. It is defined by Paul in a couple of letters.
To Timothy he writes: Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5

...and to the Ephesian Church: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing b her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

The burden is kinda heavy and some what ironically has cost me my marriage of 16 years (and because of the social system in my country that teaches women that men are irrelevant).

 

[SkyWriting]

I like you stance TBH. It is YHWH who defines position.

But here is the thing: As a man with a family I have a place. It is defined by Paul in a couple of letters.
To Timothy he writes: Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5

...and to the Ephesian Church: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing b her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

The burden is kinda heavy and some what ironically has cost me my marriage of 16 years (and because of the social system in my country that teaches women that men are irrelevant).

That is for you to decide, for you.

Jesus never struck Paul blind for three days.
Jesus doesn't do that, so it never happened.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Sir, where does the Bible actually say all of that? Some very strong filters are skewing your reading of the passage. I'm very familiar with the filters you are using. I used to wear a hat until I studied the matter out for almost a year and realized that a hat was beside the whole point of the passage.

Also, how is it that you blow right through v. 15 where Paul defines what the cover is? Paul's definition in v.15 is very plain but before I studied the matter out, my filters wouldn't accept v. 15 as really being there/meaning anything. You are suffering from the same malady.

Dare to believe the Word for what it really says. After studying this passage, I had to realize the only way you could see the passage as requiring hats is a very superficial understanding that skimmed/skipped over what the passage really says. For example, apparently women do not pray or prophesy in your church (v5) because your church keeps them silent.

Why do you ditch verses 5 and 15 but cling to a tangled up mess for the rest of the chapter?

Paul uses two completely different greek words in verses 5 and 15. In verse 5, as well as 4, he uses a term that clearly references a cloth covering or veil. The term used in verse 15 is clearly speaking of hair. Beyond that, if you wish to argue that he is talking about hair throughout neither verses 5 or 6 make any sense. Verse 15 speaks of long hair, if that's the covering then verse 5 basically says it a woman has short hair let her be shorn. In other words, if a woman has short hair let her have short hair. That's clearly not what Paul is trying to say, especially not in light of verse 4 which says that it is dishonoring to his head (Christ) for a man to be covered.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Jesus IS God;

Jesus is the WORD of God. The Word of God took on flesh .

And on one occasion the leader was a woman - Deborah.

Deborah was a prophetess and a judge.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Jesus never struck Paul blind for three days.

That was a messenger of Satan to buffet him.

 

[Isilwen]

Jesus is the WORD of God. The Word of God took on flesh .

Are you saying that you don't believe in the Trinity?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are you saying that you don't believe in the Trinity?

Trinity is not a word in our Bible. I only deal with words in the Bible. Esp I want to look at the Torah and what Moses said in the Original Hebrew Language. My approach is very expository. In this case the passage I am talking about: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," (John1:14) John starts off this discussion with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John1:1) We were talking about the relationship between Jesus the Son & God the Father. Later on Jesus says: “as long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me." (John14:6)

We can go back to the first word in the Bible: "Beginning". The B in the word beginning represents the tent or dwelling where people live. The Be represents Ben or Son of God. This means to be the Son of the Head of the house. The Son has all the authority of the Father only Jesus came into the house as a servant. I could keep going with this but I do not know if it all pertains to what we were talking about.

 

[Isilwen]

Trinity is not a word in our Bible. I only deal with words in the Bible. Esp I want to look at the Torah and what Moses said in the Original Hebrew Language. My approach is very expository. So if you have a Bible word I will be glad to do a study on that with you. Or if you have a passage in the Bible that we can look at and study.

So you are non-Trinitarian?

Interesting!

Would do my or you know good. I have had discussions with non-trinitarians before and it never turns out well and there is no fruit involved.

So, hard pass. Maybe someone else will take you up on it.

I remain steadfastly a believer in the Trinity and always will!

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you are non-Trinitarian?

I do not discuss words that are not in the Bible. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? I ONLY use the Bible dictionary and your word is not in my dictionary.

 

[Emmylouwho]

If you are serious about ignoring 1 Corinthians, why did you start this thread? What does it matter if you are puzzled by a verse when you have decided not to bother with the entire book?

By the way, if you are disregarding the whole of 1 Corinthians then that includes chapter 13 - love is patient, love is kind etc etc, which is often read at weddings. It also includes chapter 12 where Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit and chapter 15 where he defines what the Gospel is and talks about life after death.

I realized from this thread that Corinthians is actually a letter that Paul wrote. I have decided to dismiss it for that reason. It was a letter directed at people who no longer exist about problems that have nothing to do with me. It’s personal correspondence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

that have nothing to do with me.

This letter does relate to you. First we look at who the Bible was first written for. Then we look at how the Bible applies to us today. Sometimes this refers to the mysteries of God or the Hidden Treasures of God.

 

[Isilwen]

I do not discuss words that are not in the Bible. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? I ONLY use the Bible dictionary and your word is not in my dictionary.

I was trying to get clarification.

Not sure what part of that you're having trouble understanding.

 

[Endeavourer]

Paul uses two completely different greek words in verses 5 and 15. In verse 5, as well as 4, he uses a term that clearly references a cloth covering or veil. The term used in verse 15 is clearly speaking of hair. Beyond that, if you wish to argue that he is talking about hair throughout neither verses 5 or 6 make any sense. Verse 15 speaks of long hair, if that's the covering then verse 5 basically says it a woman has short hair let her be shorn. In other words, if a woman has short hair let her have short hair. That's clearly not what Paul is trying to say, especially not in light of verse 4 which says that it is dishonoring to his head (Christ) for a man to be covered.

Hi Redwingfan. If what you represent here is not true, are you willing to reconsider your position?

This is what I was told for years as well.

Due to some other circumstances which made me question my church's particular presentation of the reason for hats, I ended up doing my own research on the words Paul used, and was extremely surprised to find the truth is the opposite of what I had been told (and what you represented above). See below:

Our filters are conditioned to automatically see these texts as requiring a hat. However, in verse 15 Paul defines his usage of the word 'cover' to specifically mean 'long hair'.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair (2863 koma) , it is a glory to her: for her hair (2864 kome) is given her for a covering.​

2863 koma: wear the hair long, allow the hair to grow out.
2864 kome: hair, long hair​

Note: 2359 thrix: hair; the hair of the head (just regular hair) is not found in our passage.

Using 'long hair', as Paul wrote, fits the passage not only to our English-language hearing but also is more true to Paul's flow of this passage. All of the initial references to "cover" use a generic word meaning either 'cover the head' or 'veil' (2619 katakaluptó). However, the final word used in v 15 specifically cannot mean anything but a clothing or cloth cover:

Here is the passage, using Paul's definition of “long hair", interpolated:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having long hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without long hair (2619 katakaluptó) on her head dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have no long hair (2619) on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair (2619) on her head.

7 For a man indeed ought not to have long hair (2619) on his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

To add: v 14 carries forward in this vein literally (no interpolation): Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Followed by v 15 literally (no interpolation): But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering (4018 peribolaiou, or that which is thrown round for a covering, corpse-clothes, woman's head-gear. Some render this as "an article of apparel that covers much of the body, covering, wrap, cloak, robe).​

So, this interpolation flows well, and v. 15, both the English and the Greek, clearly state that a woman's long hair is in the stead of any cloth covering.

The history of this passage will more clearly point to the spirit of the law that Paul is addressing (it has nothing to do with hats, but is rather about avoiding the appearance of evil in worship so people aren't confused about whether your worship is anything like that in the temple of the goddess up the street). That is another interesting study. I was stunned to realize what concern Paul had about the congregation in Corinth that instigated this chapter. If taken in that spirit, the chapter flows very congruously with Paul's other writings and reinforces his other focuses on the spirit rather than the letter of the law. It reads like the character and from the heart of the Paul we've come to know through his writings.